XFX Radeon RX 5600 XT THICC 2 review
Cougar Blazer review
NZXT Kraken X63 Review
Team Group T-Force XTREEM ARGB DDR4 review
be quiet! Shadow Rock 3 review
Basemark GPU v1.2 benchmarks with 22 GPUs
be quiet! Straight Power 11 Platinum PSU review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - February 2020
GPU Compute render perf review with 20 GPUs
Corsair H115i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
AMD Ryzen 5 3500 spotted: Six Cores but no SMT (updated)
From the looks of things, AMD is to complement its Ryzen 3000 line-up with another six-core. The Ryzen 5 3500 is running 3.6 GHz for a base clock with a 4.1 Ghz Turbo, it, however, lacks Hyperthreading (SMT) and thus is a six-thread processor.
AMD's Ryzen 3000 processors have been making news offering high performance and value for money. The R5 3600's little sister. With 3.6 GHz, it offers an identical base clock as its little sister, but it does not get SMT. In boost mode, it also 'only' reaches 4.1 GHz. In terms of price, the new CPU should rank in a price range of roughly 150 to 200 euros as the R5 3600 is offered for ~210 euros, (already available at online retailers under 200 euros).
Update September 25th, 2019 - the processor has once again surfaced, this time in an Asian store. The Ryzen 5 3500X again was listed at a maximum clock speed of 4.1 GHz. The CPU is in the store for 1099 yuan, converted around 140 euros. On the Vietnam AMD red team fan club a photo appeared as well.
| Processor | Cores/Threads | Clock speed/turbo (GHz) | Cache (total) | TDP |
| Ryzen 9 3950X | 16/32 | 3.5 / 4.7 | 72MB | 105W |
| Ryzen 9 3900X | 12/24 | 3.8 / 4.6 | 70MB | 105W |
| Ryzen 7 3800X | 8/16 | 3.9 / 4.5 | 36MB | 105W |
| Ryzen 7 3700X | 8/16 | 3.6 / 4.4 | 36MB | 65W |
| Ryzen 5 3600X | 6/12 | 3.8 / 4.4 | 35MB | 95W |
| Ryzen 5 3600 | 6/12 | 3.6 / 4.2 | 35MB | 65W |
| Ryzen 5 3500X | 6/6 | 3.6 / 4.1 | 32MB | tba |
Review: AMD Ryzen 7 3800X - 08/16/2019 10:37 AM
We reviewed much of the new ZEN2 series 3000 processors from AMD, however one review had been missing, until today that is, join us un a review of the feisty and spicy Ryzen 7 3800X eight-core process...
New AMD Ryzen Threadripper shows off: hugely faster than the old 32-core - 08/15/2019 06:34 AM
You will have noticed that benchmarks of an unpublished processor have surfaced on Twitter, it holds a Geekbench entry named AMD WhiteHavenOC-CP with 32 cores, and that likely is Threadripper 3000 ( ...
Review: AMD Ryzen 5 3400G APU - 08/05/2019 09:17 AM
Vega11 based desktop APUs from AMD are here, in this review we take the Ryzen 5 3400G for a spin. AMD has been going strong with their processors, and now increases their market validity by adding a s...
G.SKILL Releases Optimized DDR4-3800 CL14 Memory Kit for AMD Ryzen 3000 & X570 Platform - 07/31/2019 11:54 AM
G.SKILL is glad to announce Trident Z Neo DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 4x8GB / 2x8GB memory kits for AMD Ryzen 3000 & X570 motherboard....
ASUS 300 and 400 AM4 Motherboards Fully Support AMD Ryzen 3000 Processors - 07/31/2019 07:18 AM
UEFI BIOS update delivers compatibility with 3rd Gen AMD Picasso APUs and Matisse CPUs with no loss of features, highlighting the ASUS commitment to customer care...
#5704155 Posted on: 08/26/2019 07:27 AM
I feel its worth spending extra 50$ for 3600.
I feel its worth spending extra 50$ for 3600.
#5704187 Posted on: 08/26/2019 09:23 AM
OEM will salivate over this:
6 core CPU for the price of 4 and better overall performance!!! Add some RGB and Bang! You are in the game.
OEM will salivate over this:
6 core CPU for the price of 4 and better overall performance!!! Add some RGB and Bang! You are in the game.
#5704188 Posted on: 08/26/2019 09:28 AM
Add some RGB and Bang!
This, it will run faster as well.
Add some RGB and Bang!
This, it will run faster as well.
#5704192 Posted on: 08/26/2019 10:01 AM
Seems that having SMT off gives more fps in a lot of games :p
Seems that having SMT off gives more fps in a lot of games :p
#5704211 Posted on: 08/26/2019 11:14 AM
At 150€ the 3500 would be a very interesting CPU even for gamers. Now if only AMD could release an 8 core part without SMT for 200€...
At 150€ the 3500 would be a very interesting CPU even for gamers. Now if only AMD could release an 8 core part without SMT for 200€...
#5704225 Posted on: 08/26/2019 12:17 PM
For anyone assembling his own computer, best stick with 3600 for gaming, productivity and longevity sake.
I'd get 3500 only if planing on upgrading to Ryzen 4000 and being on a tight budget to get other components.
For anyone assembling his own computer, best stick with 3600 for gaming, productivity and longevity sake.
I'd get 3500 only if planing on upgrading to Ryzen 4000 and being on a tight budget to get other components.
#5704237 Posted on: 08/26/2019 12:51 PM
For me, the best choice still is the 2600 for 120€~130€, at least until stocks last.
The 3600 don’t worth the extra money right now, paying ~60% more for ~15% performance!
For me, the best choice still is the 2600 for 120€~130€, at least until stocks last.
The 3600 don’t worth the extra money right now, paying ~60% more for ~15% performance!
#5704273 Posted on: 08/26/2019 01:50 PM
I would think that when disabling SMT, that would give it a better chance of reaching higher boost clocks, like the 3600X.
In general, I find it a little odd AMD is still bothering to make SMT-less CPUs. I understand their approach involves more physical hardware than Intel's and therefore means that only half (or really, less than half) of a core is defective, but, if this product is a matter of binning, it seems so oddly specific that I have a hard time imagining how it is economically viable to sell, especially considering for a small price increase, you could double your thread count. So if you imagine the CPU die like this, where each core is a set of square brackets:
The Xs signify which half of the core has a physical defect. The 2 cores on the right are assumed to be perfectly fine. This would be a best-case scenario for AMD to sell a 6c/6t CPU where only 2 core halves are "needlessly" disabled. If AMD took an "all or nothing" approach, this would otherwise be a 2c/4t CPU, which obviously will sell for less money and has even more wasted silicon.
But, what's the probability of this happening? I would think a defect that large would typically reach far enough to cripple something important, like the L2/L3 cache or fetch and decode (each of which is shared between 2 threads of a single core), where the CPU might as well be 2c/4t anyway.
Meanwhile, let's say the defect was much smaller and looked more like this:
If AMD opts for 6c/6t, that means half of a perfectly functional CPU is needlessly crippled with 2 cores being totally disabled, even though all of them are at least partially working. In other words, more than half of that CPU is disabled to make this product, which doesn't sound all that profitable.
The only reason that particular scenario would make sense is if their 4c/8t models sell for less money (which they could). I assume they aren't going to make an 8c/8t model.
I'm all for reducing waste, but I'm just having a hard time understanding why AMD would put in the effort to make and market this CPU when it ostensibly isn't going to yield enough profits to be worthwhile. It's not like people were waiting for a CPU like this to exist from AMD.
I would think that when disabling SMT, that would give it a better chance of reaching higher boost clocks, like the 3600X.
In general, I find it a little odd AMD is still bothering to make SMT-less CPUs. I understand their approach involves more physical hardware than Intel's and therefore means that only half (or really, less than half) of a core is defective, but, if this product is a matter of binning, it seems so oddly specific that I have a hard time imagining how it is economically viable to sell, especially considering for a small price increase, you could double your thread count. So if you imagine the CPU die like this, where each core is a set of square brackets:
The Xs signify which half of the core has a physical defect. The 2 cores on the right are assumed to be perfectly fine. This would be a best-case scenario for AMD to sell a 6c/6t CPU where only 2 core halves are "needlessly" disabled. If AMD took an "all or nothing" approach, this would otherwise be a 2c/4t CPU, which obviously will sell for less money and has even more wasted silicon.
But, what's the probability of this happening? I would think a defect that large would typically reach far enough to cripple something important, like the L2/L3 cache or fetch and decode (each of which is shared between 2 threads of a single core), where the CPU might as well be 2c/4t anyway.
Meanwhile, let's say the defect was much smaller and looked more like this:
If AMD opts for 6c/6t, that means half of a perfectly functional CPU is needlessly crippled with 2 cores being totally disabled, even though all of them are at least partially working. In other words, more than half of that CPU is disabled to make this product, which doesn't sound all that profitable.
The only reason that particular scenario would make sense is if their 4c/8t models sell for less money (which they could). I assume they aren't going to make an 8c/8t model.
I'm all for reducing waste, but I'm just having a hard time understanding why AMD would put in the effort to make and market this CPU when it ostensibly isn't going to yield enough profits to be worthwhile. It's not like people were waiting for a CPU like this to exist from AMD.
#5704297 Posted on: 08/26/2019 02:59 PM
I think it´s because the i5 9400F. Currently AMD have the R5 2600 on sale to clear stock, but this CPU will not last forever!
The 9400F is around 150€ in most stores. Unless AMD drop about 60€ on 3600 (which I don't see them doing, because it's a recently released CPU), they would end up with a big gap and give the sub 200€ market to Intel.
I think it´s because the i5 9400F. Currently AMD have the R5 2600 on sale to clear stock, but this CPU will not last forever!
The 9400F is around 150€ in most stores. Unless AMD drop about 60€ on 3600 (which I don't see them doing, because it's a recently released CPU), they would end up with a big gap and give the sub 200€ market to Intel.
#5704311 Posted on: 08/26/2019 03:36 PM
The lack of "hyper-threading" could definitely be a problem. The 7600 looked good on paper when it was released but today it's struggling with the low 1% in some of the newer games. Next gen consoles should be released by the end 2020 and are rumored to have 16 threads cpu. Consoles are always the lowest common denominator used to optimize games. This means that by around 2022 some companies should start to use the full power of next gen consoles which implies using more than 4-8 threads if they want to push those consoles to their limits. Not all games of course but the ones trying to sell by pushing the hardware to its limits should. I think it's definitely worth investing to get a 3600 since it has 12 threads.
Perfect for budget gaming but the 3600 is still best bang for the buck.
The lack of "hyper-threading" could definitely be a problem. The 7600 looked good on paper when it was released but today it's struggling with the low 1% in some of the newer games. Next gen consoles should be released by the end 2020 and are rumored to have 16 threads cpu. Consoles are always the lowest common denominator used to optimize games. This means that by around 2022 some companies should start to use the full power of next gen consoles which implies using more than 4-8 threads if they want to push those consoles to their limits. Not all games of course but the ones trying to sell by pushing the hardware to its limits should. I think it's definitely worth investing to get a 3600 since it has 12 threads.
#5704570 Posted on: 08/27/2019 09:56 AM
I think it is fine as more budget oriented chip for about 150USD. Some people find it bit disappointing about lack of SMT, but since all chips have SMT enabled, I feel like AMD quickly realized they have bunch of chiplets which can't do SMT well, but otherwise work without it and they can't use them anywhere. So I believe this is merely here to improve yields. And while yes, it won't age as well, but it is budget chip. And for that price point it would either be 4 core 8 threads, if SMT was on or 6 core 6 thread with SMT off, which is what leaked. And between two, they would perform and age at about the same level. But with IPC improvements, it should still be nice alternative to replace R5 2600, if supplies run out. I mean at 150USD for CPU you are likely building 1080p 60FPS build and it should be fine for that.
I think it is fine as more budget oriented chip for about 150USD. Some people find it bit disappointing about lack of SMT, but since all chips have SMT enabled, I feel like AMD quickly realized they have bunch of chiplets which can't do SMT well, but otherwise work without it and they can't use them anywhere. So I believe this is merely here to improve yields. And while yes, it won't age as well, but it is budget chip. And for that price point it would either be 4 core 8 threads, if SMT was on or 6 core 6 thread with SMT off, which is what leaked. And between two, they would perform and age at about the same level. But with IPC improvements, it should still be nice alternative to replace R5 2600, if supplies run out. I mean at 150USD for CPU you are likely building 1080p 60FPS build and it should be fine for that.
#5704788 Posted on: 08/27/2019 07:45 PM
And what if they will add some cool red strips on the his? It will be the fastest CPU ever!
This, it will run faster as well.
And what if they will add some cool red strips on the his? It will be the fastest CPU ever!
#5704860 Posted on: 08/28/2019 01:33 AM
6 3.6/7ghz cores for around 150/60 quid? Intel equivalent is the 9600k for a lot more.
6 3.6/7ghz cores for around 150/60 quid? Intel equivalent is the 9600k for a lot more.
#5704864 Posted on: 08/28/2019 02:13 AM
9600k will kill this thing @gaming....same with an 8600k
When you lower the core count on ryzen it no longer shines.
6 3.6/7ghz cores for around 150/60 quid? Intel equivalent is the 9600k for a lot more.
9600k will kill this thing @gaming....same with an 8600k
When you lower the core count on ryzen it no longer shines.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 7134
Joined: 2009-11-13
Perfect for budget gaming but the 3600 is still best bang for the buck.